Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1887-02-25


That the government should pay pen.
sons to the men who lost health or limbs
or eyesight,or became incapacitated in any
way for their own support while engaged
in its service in the overthrow of armed
rebellion, is just and right. When you 20
farther and say that the governments
should pension every man who entered
its service II he IS now poorand ncapacitat.
ed from service by accident or disease that
mas occurred since the war, the proposition
Is not SO free from doubt. While the
greater part OF the Union army was com
posed OF men who entered the servioa
from patriotic motives, there were as
everybody knows, many thousands who
enlisted solely to get big bounties who
shirked all duties; struggled on ALI
marches; skunk away from all fights
Every soldier can name such men and
some could name many such Is it lust to
the patriotic veterans to put these men on
the same level with them Are not the
shirks and bounty jumpers the class who
would benefit the most by this bill The
patriots who came out of the war sound
IN health and limb, have generally been
able to support themselves, in this
lanu which gives so free re
ward to industry and enterprise.
Most of them would scorn to confess
themselves paupers, even if sometimes
pInched by poverty, in order to draw
twelve dollars month from the public
purse. III the other class were not troubled
by scruples during the war would they
be now Would there not be an i'm
mensely increased opening for fraud I'm
der this bill and would not the men who
least deserve any such reward or any such
help, be the ones who would benefit by it
to the greatest extent Such is the view
taken of this bill by many soldiers. And
While the preponderance of expression
from the Grand Army commanders and
solulers, has been in favor of the bill and
vi passing IL over the presidents veto,
many veterans have been free to say that
they wanted no such measure. "The bill
makes paupers out of the old veterans"
SAID one Il don't believe that the G.. A.
H. are people who are depending on the
charity of the government: they are
mostly men who are able to earn a liveli-
hood, and we don't want to be classed as
paupers," said another. 81 am aG. A. r.
man, and am opposed to that bill The
men who did the fighting shouldn't be
compelled to come forward now and make
paupers of themselves" said General
John Newton. Let the country do JUS
tlce to the men that gallantly fought for
Its preservation and not place them on
the same level with the man who has
done no fighting" said Col. Grosvenor-
and similar expressions could be quoted
in large numbers. This is, as it seems to
us, the more manly view of the measure.
or course no patriotic citizen can be
willing to see any deserving old soldier in
the poor house. All such should be cared
for and made comfortable in soldiers
homes-and Congress, we think, should
aid literally the States which establish
and maintain such homes-or be assisted
in some careful and discriminating way in
their own homes. But that is very diff
ferent matter from a sweeping measure
pensioning every man who can make out,
by truth or fraud, that he is in whole or
in part dependent on others for his sup
port. Looking to the future as well as to
past, why should any patriot wish to see
patriotism discredited by putting mer-
cenares and patriots on the same level 3?
Pray let this virtue, for while longer,
be, like some Others to some extent its
own reward.